Do Aliens Exist? Proving Life Beyond Earth

  • Thread starter Vast
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Aliens
In summary, some people are convinced that there is life in space, and lack of evidence doesn't mean we're alone. Others believe that proof of aliens is not necessary, and that based on the math, many ETs must exist. However, there are still many questions that need to be answered before a conclusion can be made.
  • #1
Vast
285
0
Do we need to prove Aliens exist?
Some people are pretty much convinced that there’s life out there, and I mean just do the math, what proof do we really need that we’re not alone? Maybe I should say that lack of evidence doesn’t mean we’re alone.

I’m guessing from the math, that intelligent civilizations originating from other planets, have existed for millions of years, if not billions of years. I think those figures can be calculated if you take some things into consideration, for instance the rate of suitable planetary formation.

In the sense that I’m talking about, life in the Universe would start off quite slowly and I guess in the phase of the Universe we’re at now, would begin to explode with life.

I won’t be surprised if I get attacked for this theory, but I would appreciate any constructive criticism.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Originally posted by Vast


I’m guessing from the math, that intelligent civilizations originating from other planets, have existed for millions of years, if not billions of years.


One problem with this idea is the lack of alien encounters here on Earth. The one civilised species we know of (ourselves) colonises wherever it goes. If other technological civilisations exist, and have existed for millions of years, and if one of these civilisations is within the Milky Way gallaxy, then every habitable planet shouild already be entirely populated by them. A gallaxy-wide supercivilisation should be in place and readily apparent. It is for this very reason that scifi stories like Star Trek came up with the "Prime Directive", not because it makes any sort of sense or is the least bit believable, but because without it one can't reasonably speak of other civilisations existing without our knowledge of them.
 
  • #3


Originally posted by LURCH
One problem with this idea is the lack of alien encounters here on Earth. The one civilised species we know of (ourselves) colonises wherever it goes. If other technological civilisations exist, and have existed for millions of years, and if one of these civilisations is within the Milky Way gallaxy, then every habitable planet shouild already be entirely populated by them. A gallaxy-wide supercivilisation should be in place and readily apparent. It is for this very reason that scifi stories like Star Trek came up with the "Prime Directive", not because it makes any sort of sense or is the least bit believable, but because without it one can't reasonably speak of other civilisations existing without our knowledge of them.

I think this assumes way too much. What motivates an ET? What are his limitations? Why would he colonize given the technical burden of doing so? Finally, there is evidence that ET has been here; just not proof beyond doubt.

Try another angle. The math indicates that many, many ETs are almost certainly out there. We can already imagine potential methods for escaping the SOL limitation on travel. There should be some ET's that are between thousands to millions of years more advanced than us. Whether or not ET can, will, or did visit requires assumptions about future technology for which we have no frame of reference. The fact is, we don't know what's possible for a highly advanced race of ETs.
 
  • #4
The math indicates that many, many ETs are almost certainly out there

No it doesn't. You can make any kind of assumptions and plug them into the Drake equation and get any number oout that you want. GIGO.

Actually stars like the sun - just on the edge of dwarfdom but not quite over it - are fairly rare, I think there's only about one other in our 100 ly sphere (except double stars like alpha Kent.). And they say not all the galaxy but just a band of it has gas clouds with the heavy elements we need. And so on. You can keep plugging in worst case values and make Drake say we're alone in the galaxy.
 
  • #5
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The math indicates that many, many ETs are almost certainly out there

No it doesn't. You can make any kind of assumptions and plug them into the Drake equation and get any number oout that you want. GIGO.

Actually stars like the sun - just on the edge of dwarfdom but not quite over it - are fairly rare, I think there's only about one other in our 100 ly sphere (except double stars like alpha Kent.). And they say not all the galaxy but just a band of it has gas clouds with the heavy elements we need. And so on. You can keep plugging in worst case values and make Drake say we're alone in the galaxy.

and with billions of galaxies...

Also, with the recent discovery of many planets, the worst case Drake numbers just got larger.

There is no reason to think that our solar system or planet is unique.
 
Last edited:
  • #6
I recently heard a NASA scientist talking about the Hubble. She said that at some point when they focused the Hubble on a dark spot in space, a place where nothing can be seen in our galaxy, a spot "the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length", they saw over two thousand galaxies. The point being just how vast a place the universe really is. If we humans are a one in a billion by chance, then there are, or were, or will be billions and billions like us.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I recently heard a NASA scientist talking about the Hubble. She said that at some point when they focused the Hubble on a dark spot in space, a place where nothing can be seen in our galaxy, a spot "the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length", they saw over two thousand galaxies. The point being just how vast a place the universe really is. If we humans are a one in a billion by chance, then there are, or were, or will be billions and billions like us.
http://www.stsci.edu/ftp/science/hdf/hdf.html Stay tuned for the sequel due out this month: Hubble Deep Field 2.

While I am of the opinion that there is probably life out there, I also agree that the Drake equation, while interesting, doesn't really tell us anything right now.

Also, the first post and the title of the thread don't seem connected...
Whether or not ET can, will, or did visit requires assumptions about future technology for which we have no frame of reference.
The laws of physics provide a frame of reference for such predictions. They make it highly unlikely any have or ever will visit us.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by russ_watters
While I am of the opinion that there is probably life out there, I also agree that the Drake equation, while interesting, doesn't really tell us anything right now.

It does address the magnitude of the numbers involved.

The laws of physics provide a frame of reference for such predictions. They make it highly unlikely any have or ever will visit us.

They [the laws of physics] make it appear unlikely based on our understanding of physics at this time. Since physics is by no means complete, or at least it is not recognized as such, we can’t know the physics of the year 500,000 A.D.; that is we have no valid frame of reference from which to divine the future. We can’t extrapolate physics like a trend line.
 
  • #9
The title of the thread is essentially trying to include “detection or visitation” into the math. Although I’m not sure what evidence there is, we have been visited which Ivan Seeking was referring to, I can pretty much say that our priority is to detect other intelligent civilizations. For the reason we have SETI, the same reason ET would have to look for life elsewhere in the Universe.

Once it did find life, the question then becomes, what stage of evolution would that life be at? If a more advanced civilization detected ours, say at a time when we we’re still primitive apes, communication wouldn’t really work, but instead they would simply observe our evolution.
They could probably extrapolate that in another few million years our evolution would reach what it is today, and simply let things take its own coarse. I don’t think ET would have any reason to alter another species evolution, it simply wouldn’t need to, but this is just my impression. I like 2001 A Space Odyssey for this reason.

Also I’m more inclined to believe that traveling throughout the Universe isn’t limited by the speed of light.

SelfAdjoint made an important point that the heavier elements needed seem to only occur in certain locations around the galaxy. As I understand it, the heavier elements that are created from supernovae, should already be widely distributed. These heavier elements come from much younger stars, those existing in the earlier Universe. Our Sun is about 5 billion years old, but stars in the earlier Universe may have lived shorter lives going be recent observations.

This of course determines how rare those Earth like planets are, which is why I think it is ever more probable that they are likely to occur.
 
  • #10
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
It does address the magnitude of the numbers involved.
It gives us a theoretical association between arbitrary numbers: ie, very little of real value. We don't have nearly enough info to pin down most numbers in it to the nearest order of magnitude (should we go over each one?) and as a result, the values we get from it can't be pinned down to within a good 5 orders of magnitude. So while its interesting to maniuplate, it doesn't give us much of scientific value.
They [the laws of physics] make it appear unlikely based on our understanding of physics at this time. Since physics is by no means complete, or at least it is not recognized as such, we can’t know the physics of the year 500,000 A.D.; that is we have no valid frame of reference from which to divine the future. We can’t extrapolate physics like a trend line.
The first sentence is correct, after that, ehhh...

Our understanding of science is for the most part hyperbolic and you can fit it to a curve. That is, if you take a scientific observation (the speed of light for example) and graph the accuracy with respect to time (year the measurement was taken), the result is roughly hyperbolic.

As a result, the possible error in the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light has continually decreased and is now extrordinarily small. In 10,000 years, scientists will not suddenly discover that C is 600,000 km/s. Its quite simply not possible.

You can fit other observations (oribital mechanics calculations for example) to similar curves. The bottom line, however, is that what is unknown about how the universe works is getting pretty small. Whether we stumble upon a GUT tomorrow (some physicists used to think we were pretty close) or we just keep getting closer and closer without hitting it doesn't matter: C is roughly 300,000km/s, no object with mass will ever exceed that, and no amount of research will change that.
Also I’m more inclined to believe that traveling throughout the Universe isn’t limited by the speed of light.
Why? That is: on what do you base that belief?
As I understand it, the heavier elements that are created from supernovae, should already be widely distributed. These heavier elements come from much younger stars, those existing in the earlier Universe. Our Sun is about 5 billion years old, but stars in the earlier Universe may have lived shorter lives going be recent observations.
IIRC, the sun is thought to be third or fourth generation.
This of course determines how rare those Earth like planets are, which is why I think it is ever more probable that they are likely to occur.
But until we find one outside our own solar system, we are just speculating. That's my point to I.S. There really isn't any firm basis for that particular term in the equation.

I certainly hope NASA isn't so burdened by Bush's boondoggle that they have to cancel or cut the Origins Program, because it has a real possibility of being able to pin some of those terms down and possibly even hit the jackpot of finding another earth.
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Vast
Do we need to prove Aliens exist?

For now, I think we can say the odds are good (based on math, bio, etc.)...but we have a lot more research to do before we can prove it's reality.
 
  • #12
Aliens according to Star Trek...Strap a cornish pastie or sausage roll to an extra's head and voila, we have new race. Maybe the size of the savoury on their head is how fearsome the race is. And they NEVER meet any NICE aliens.
 
  • #13
Originally posted by russ_watters
It gives us a theoretical association between arbitrary numbers: ie, very little of real value. We don't have nearly enough info to pin down most numbers in it to the nearest order of magnitude (should we go over each one?) and as a result, the values we get from it can't be pinned down to within a good 5 orders of magnitude. So while its interesting to maniuplate, it doesn't give us much of scientific value. The first sentence is correct, after that, ehhh...

I was talking about the size of the universe and the number of galaxies and stars that exist.


Our understanding of science is for the most part hyperbolic and you can fit it to a curve. That is, if you take a scientific observation (the speed of light for example) and graph the accuracy with respect to time (year the measurement was taken), the result is roughly hyperbolic.

You are talking about simple measurement error and precision. I am talking about great leaps in understanding as with Galileo, Newton, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, and those forced by discoveries that cannot be anticipated. In physics we must think in terms of centuries, not decades.

You can fit other observations (oribital mechanics calculations for example) to similar curves. The bottom line, however, is that what is unknown about how the universe works is getting pretty small.

Prove it. This assumes that we know how much we don't know; clearly a fallacy. In fact we only recently realized that we observe only about 5-10% of the universe. We now realize that 90% of the universe - dark matter, or whatever we call it today - is unknown. Of course, Michio Kaku thinks that the gravity from the alleged dark matter may really be the gravity from another universe leaking into ours. Oh yes, can you please explain the mechanism for entaglement. How exactly is the information "communicated"? I don't think we're done yet.

Whether we stumble upon a GUT tomorrow (some physicists used to think we were pretty close) or we just keep getting closer and closer without hitting it doesn't matter: C is roughly 300,000km/s, no object with mass will ever exceed that, and no amount of research will change that.

This assumes travel in the sense that we know it now. Just one concept like space folding, warp bubbles [where Star Trek got its idea], controlled worm holes as proposed by Cal Tech in 1987, or certain spin offs from the Casimir effect could make this limit a moot point. Presently it seems that the energy requirements are the biggest limitation. For a preliminary update of the facts please see The Future of Spacetime by Hawking, Thorne, Novikov, Ferris, Lightman, and Price. c2002.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Originally posted by russ_watters
Why? That is: on what do you base that belief?

I'm not trying to say we can violate the laws of nature, but its not very clear as yet what the laws of nature permit us to do. For now traveling in the Universe seems very inefficient if its kept under the SOL.
 
  • #15
Physicists said the same thing about the sound barrier. It can't be broken.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Norval
Physicists said the same thing about the sound barrier. It can't be broken.

That was believed to be a technical (engineering) problem, not a violation of the laws of physics like breaking the speed of light.
 
  • #17
Hey Phobos, are your eyes brown?
People often whistle another tune when they are proven wrong, but then there are some that just keep whistling creating deception after deception. Time to debunk the deceivers.

There is no limit to how fast we can go. We just need a faster engine.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by Norval
There is no limit to how fast we can go. We just need a faster engine.

There is a difference between engineering limits and fundamental limits. According to our best understanding of the laws of physics, faster engines will not beat the speed of light barrier...EVER!

There are a range of potential solutions that seek to bypass this limit [not to beat it], however none of these approaches are presently possible due to engineering and energy limits. None may ever be possible...even if in principle they might work. For example, in some approaches exotic materials are required that may not even exist. Other solutions require the energy of a thousand suns, or the infinite (?) mass density of a black hole. In other cases we require perfect superconductors which likely will never be possible to make. Any hopes to beat the SOL barrier are just that and only that for now - hopes. There is a chance; we can say no more.
 
  • #19
wow, we just never think outside the box eh? faster engine? tsk tsk.. anyway..

aliens yes or no? of course just look at all those movies, lol :wink:

ah i don't believe so.. i mean the distances and times are just so huge, and even if those were conquered what would be the point of coming here? to earth? if there are other ppls out there, you think they would come to earth?! lol, no no, well mb if we are a tv show.

god i love south park. http://www.southpark.dsl.pipex.com/scripts/scr704.shtml

yeah you wont' read the whole script basically says Earth is a tv show.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #20
Well if the human race were important in one respect or another for some reason then there might be a reason that ET may be watching us. As it is written in the bible, “we are a spectacle to them that watch from the heavens”.

Go figure, maybe it is our TV shows.
 
  • #21
My point in this is that we can't rule out the alleged ET presence with objections based on fundamental science; not yet. To do so is to invoke speculative arguments that only appear to be based on fact. I also know that my position is safe for the rest of my life...at the least. A complete acceptance of a true TOE or GUT may require a hundred years or more; assuming of course that the theory can ever be completely tested.

Until this happens:

We don't have a complete understanding of the laws of physics. If we do we don't know it.

Given that above, we can't predict what in the extreme is and is not possible - we can only guess based on what we think we know. Guessing is not science.

Using false "scientific doctrine" to dismiss extreme ideas may only inhibit science.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Given that above, we can't predict what in the extreme is and is not possible - we can only guess based on what we think we know. Guessing is not science.

This is correct. Science, as we have it not, says nothing about space aliens because it has no theory of them. It can say a lot about specific claims of visitation, because those claims occur in a context of known science. So what this is, is an "ET of the gaps", comparable to the last ditch "God of the gaps" of some theologians.
 
  • #23
Originally posted by Norval
There is no limit to how fast we can go. We just need a faster engine.

Einstein et al. showed that there is a limit. Space and time behave differently when you approach the speed of light and they do not allow you to reach or surpass the speed of light. If there's a better theory, then great, let's have it. But for now, the theory of relativity remains strongly proven.

But like Ivan said, maybe there's a way to bypass that behavior of spacetime (e.g., wormhole or whatever).
 
  • #24
Originally posted by selfAdjoint
because those claims occur in a context of known science.[/B]

Can you explain what you mean here? This seems to contradict the premise that we don't necessarily know what any alleged ET's technology could be. If this is true, then we can't know what to look for or how to look.


As for the gaps, the devil is always in the details.

Darn that orbit of Mercury cries Newton!
 
  • #25
Being fortunate enough to have seen two UFO’s in motion that displayed characteristics while moving that no known craft to me can do, I state there are UFO’s. I learned to fly airplanes by the time I was twelve years old. My first sighting of a UFO was when I was about fourteen, and the next I was about twenty-six. Thus I have to admit that since I am a very pragmatic and observant fellow there is simply one explanation that fits all the available information and misinformation that is bantered about of UFO’s, aliens, and so on. Yes they are here, and have been for a very long time, just screwing with us humans.

Yes, it’s fine for those that follow to stop and smell the roses as they work out all the steps the explorers, trailblazers and trackers left for them to follow. If I had heard that what I have accomplished in my life thus far was “impossible”, would I have actually have accomplished the impossible? I did, and have, and continue to do so. What I state is the obvious to any human with the normal cognitive abilities we have.

Pattern recognition is a cognitive ability that can be developed, but try programming a computer to do what a human can do? Even a computer program can be developed easily to find certain patterns but some are much more difficult to program. The patterns I have seen are indicative to me that there is an alien presence, they do not want disclosure but are aware that it is about to happen. It’s kind of like panning for gold. You find lots of flakes, but now and then you get some nuggets. Don’t sell us humans short, we are very capable of doing what has been stated as the impossible.
 
  • #26
by Norval
...displayed characteristics while moving that no known craft to me can do, ...

The patterns I have seen are indicative to me that there is an alien presence, they do not want disclosure but are aware that it is about to happen.
Could you explain?

thanks
 
  • #27
I thought I just did.
 
  • #28
Originally posted by Norval
Being fortunate enough to have seen two UFO’s in motion that displayed characteristics while moving that no known craft to me can do, I state there are UFO’s.

Norval,
Why don't you tell us about your sightings? I for one would like to hear about them.
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Vast
Do we need to prove Aliens exist?
Some people are pretty much convinced that there’s life out there, and I mean just do the math, what proof do we really need that we’re not alone? Maybe I should say that lack of evidence doesn’t mean we’re alone.

I’m guessing from the math, that intelligent civilizations originating from other planets, have existed for millions of years, if not billions of years. I think those figures can be calculated if you take some things into consideration, for instance the rate of suitable planetary formation.

In the sense that I’m talking about, life in the Universe would start off quite slowly and I guess in the phase of the Universe we’re at now, would begin to explode with life.

I won’t be surprised if I get attacked for this theory, but I would appreciate any constructive criticism.

I would like to say that the presence of these extra-terrestrial r possible. there r almost a million stars in the vast universe like ours, the sun, and every star in the universe, there may be another solar systhem like ours!

Even though constant research have been made to show no living things can be existing in other planets other than ours, but as i mentioned above there r many and we can't exclude the possibilities that there aren't ET in other places in the universe!

We as seen from other inhabitants can also be mentioned as ET, because of our intelligence. We r evolved despite proven research of the Earth being attacked by asteroids so there may also be other living beings ,maybe, out of our solar system in planets on other stars!

therefore the possibility of the presence of ET outside of our miniature Earth in the whole universe may be true!
 
  • #30
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Norval,
Why don't you tell us about your sightings? I for one would like to hear about them.

Me too would also like to hear about the sightings! Tell us more!
 
  • #31
I would rather discuss the potential that aliens are amongst us in this thread. Any sightings are only a small part of the overall bigger picture.
 
  • #32
Norval,

You're the one who said you saw a ufo. If you won't explain, then I can only assume that you are just making this up.

regards
 
  • #33
What, pray tell, is there to explain? Go read the net for all the sighting stories you want. This thread and my interest lay along the discovery of aliens and if indeed they are here just what is the reason? Start a thread about sightings if you want, I would be more than happy to ignore it as I do most threads. As I stated, I am satisfied that there is enough evidence to convince me that aliens are here. So get on with it or get over it. :wink:
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Norval
What, pray tell, is there to explain? Go read the net for all the sighting stories you want. This thread and my interest lay along the discovery of aliens and if indeed they are here just what is the reason? Start a thread about sightings if you want, I would be more than happy to ignore it as I do most threads. As I stated, I am satisfied that there is enough evidence to convince me that aliens are here. So get on with it or get over it. :wink:
I thought this forum was Scepticism and debunking? So I'm trying to debunk and/or learn about what you have posted.

You can't tell what it looked like or it's movements, etc?
 
  • #35
After reading a few reports on UFO’s (The Cometa in another thread) It seems the phenomenon of ET here on Earth is such that they’re strategy or intentions is to slowly acclimatize us to they’re presence.

The idea that we’re alone in the Universe is very much a part of our understanding throughout history. IMO it’s a product from the religious view that Earth was created from God, or humans are separated from other species. Another factor is that we’ve only recently discovered the true scale of the Universe, and thus in knowing such things conclude that Life here on Earth is not a just a freak event.

So with the possibility that many habitable planets exist, and our current obsession to find life on Mars, other planets and radio signals from ET, in the view of many its simply a matter of time.

On the other hand ET could quite possibly be here already, and as before in the case that our species simply isn’t evolved enough to have any intellectual capabilities, there is no need to make contact. Perhaps we are on the edge of finding life in the Universe and ET just happens to be here simultaneously making its presence known in incremental steps.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
12
Views
997
Replies
1
Views
850
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
31
Views
3K
Back
Top